Covet & Mane, LLC v. Invisible Bead Extensions, LLC
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-07740
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Covet & Mane v. Invisible Bead Extensions, Judge Lehrburger’s order concerns Covet & Mane’s request to file a redacted letter under seal.
Covet & Mane, LLC and Invisible Bead Extensions, LLC, concerning the filing and possible sealing of material drawn from discovery documents and deposition testimony.
What happened
Covet & Mane, LLC asked to file a redacted letter about its planned request to amend its First Amended Complaint. The letter concerned a proposed motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The request was made in the case against Invisible Bead Extensions, LLC.
Covet & Mane said Invisible Bead Extensions had labeled its entire 8,358-page document production as available only to attorneys’ eyes, and had applied the same designation to portions of several depositions. Covet & Mane said its letter summarized some of that material and sought to redact those summaries, while disputing the confidentiality designations.
The supplied text ends with an apparent “SO ORDERED” notation signed by United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger, but it does not clearly state whether the motion was granted or denied. The case information identifies Judge John Cronan, creating a discrepancy about the assigned judge.
The detailed version
- Covet & Mane, LLC v. Invisible Bead Extensions, LLC · No. 1:21-cv-07740
- John Cronan
- Sept. 2, 2022
Background
Covet & Mane, LLC moved to file a redacted copy of a letter concerning its request for a pre-motion conference about a proposed motion to amend its First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The motion invoked Rule B of the Southern District of New York’s procedures for redactions and filing documents under seal.
Covet & Mane said that Invisible Bead Extensions, LLC had designated all 8,358 pages of its August 11, 2022 document production as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the parties’ court-approved confidentiality agreement. Invisible Bead Extensions had also given that designation to the deposition of third-party witness Cassadi Currier; portions of its deposition under Rule 30(b)(6), which concerns an organization’s deposition testimony; and depositions of its principals, Tyler Turley and McKenzie Turley.
Request and Proposed Treatment
Covet & Mane stated that its letter summarized some documents and deposition testimony covered by those designations. Although it disagreed with the designations, it asked to file a version of the letter with those summaries redacted. It also asked the Court to allow that filing so Invisible Bead Extensions could submit a letter motion explaining why the material should remain sealed, consistent with the standards discussed in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.
Covet & Mane stated that it had sent an unredacted copy to chambers by email and served it on Invisible Bead Extensions’ counsel. A redacted copy was attached as Exhibit 1.
Disposition
The supplied text ends with an apparent “SO ORDERED” notation dated September 2, 2022 and signed by Robert W. Lehrburger, United States Magistrate Judge. However, the text provided does not state an express disposition such as “granted,” “denied,” or “granted in part and denied in part.” Accordingly, the precise ruling on the motion cannot be determined from the supplied text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.